The doctor prescribed a different medication for her. And doctors, not patients, ultimately get to decide which drug they prescribe.

I don’t think her case is going anywhere. She is suing pro se, which means she couldn’t find or doesn’t want a lawyer to take her case.

Because the doctor prescribed a different drug.

Don’t get your hopes up. She sued pro se, which means she couldn’t find or doesn’t want a lawyer to take her case. Either way, it is very unlikely she will win.

My guess is that the drug is valproate. It’s used for headaches as well as epilepsy, though obviously other drugs can be used instead.

The problem with valproate is that it is causes birth defects in two thirds (!!) of pregnancies, including spina bifida in 10% of pregnancies.

The World Health Organization and the European Medicine Agency have issued statements/regulations against prescribing it to any women of childbearing potential. Plenty of American docs take a similar approach, regardless of religious beliefs. Just to be crystal clear, neither the WHO nor the EMA pay attention to Dobbs, the SCOTUS, or the GOP.

If you go to a doctor and demand a course of antibiotics for a viral infection, they have been trained to refuse. Because antibiotics do not treat viruses.

For that matter, if you actually do have a simple bacterial infection and immediately demand a last-resort antibiotic like vancomycin, doctors have been trained to refuse. Vancomycin may work on you, but using it may create bacterial resistant strains that will put others at risk. Resistance is especially a threat if you don’t complete your course of antibiotics.

So doctors will offer you a different antibiotic instead, with less risk of creating a resistant strain. Even if you promise to complete your antibiotics, “you get what you get so don’t get upset”.

People have agency, but so do doctors. Doctors are not supposed to be dispensaries who simply give patients whatever they ask for. Doctors have the right to refuse to provide a prescription that is not in keeping with the standard of care, and offer a different prescription instead. You have the right to find a different doctor, or not see a doctor at all.

Most people who take Viagra have hypertension, because hypertension is the main cause of ED. That doesn’t mean Viagra is dangerous, but you shouldn’t combine it with certain other drugs.

There is a world of difference between valproate and Viagra. Valproate causes birth defects and cognitive delay in 30-50% of pregnancies, which is astonishingly high. If Viagra caused permanent harm to even 5% of users, it would already be off the market.

Your link literally explains how to sue a doctor for malpractice after signing a liability waiver.

No waiver can claim that patients cannot sue their doctors for gross incompetence.

In most cases, this will involve collecting medical files, seeing copies of the waiver(s) signed by the patient, and proving medical malpractice or negligence by showing that:

The doctor in question deviated from an acceptable standard of care

The injuries came from that deviation

The damages came from those injuries

Which is straightforward in this case. The standard of care is not to give valproate to women of childbearing age except as a last resort, and valproate is known to have a very high risk of birth defects.

Viagra is pretty safe, as drugs go. Are you thinking of Vioxx? That stuff was taken off the market.

Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:

valproate should be avoided, if possible, in women of childbearing potential because of teratogenicity

See also:

In 2018, the European Medicines Agency introduced new restrictions on the use of valproate in girls and women of childbearing potential to avoid exposure during pregnancy

And yes, valproate is also used to treat cluster headaches, so it could easily be the drug that the woman in the article can’t obtain.

Liability waivers don’t protect doctors against malpractice claims.

I don’t know, because the medication in question hasn’t been identified.

But in general, if a medication causes any birth defects (or, more often, miscarriages) in lab animals then it won’t be used at the equivalent dose in pregnant patients. It would be unethical to try to find out what it does to a human fetus.

I just noticed this in the article:

Where are we drawing the line here? Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test

Nearly all hospitals have long required pregnancy tests for some things, like getting a CT scan (which involves radiation exposure). And if the test is positive, the doctor is supposed to consider alternatives.

That’s not how it would play out in a malpractice case.

Lawyer: You recommended my client take a medication that causes birth defects, when you could have recommended a medication that doesn’t cause birth defects. Because of that, her child has birth defects.

Doctor: Yes, but she said she didn’t want children.

Lawyer: Have you ever heard a woman say she didn’t want children, who later went on to have a child?

Doctor: Yes, it happens sometimes.

Lawyer: So birth defects are a foreseeable result of the medication you recommended, even in women who say they don’t want children?

Doctor: …

That’s unlikely to make a difference in court. Doctors are responsible for recommending the least risky treatment options. They aren’t supposed to leave everything up to the patient.

Yes, this is very likely driven by fear of a malpractice lawsuit. Medications that can harm a fetus are supposed to be a last resort for those who can get pregnant. So if there are other potential medications for this woman, she will likely find it difficult to get a prescription for this one regardless of the doctor’s religious beliefs.

This sort of thing has been common practice since long before Dobbs. And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects, especially if there is an alternative prescription that is not known to be associated with birth defects. And there almost always is an alternative.

Imagine a coffee shop ad with a beautiful example of latte art, but when you get your latte you are horrified to find just plain foam. Unless the ad specifically mentioned latte art, I doubt you’d have grounds for a lawsuit.

As for your example, I’m finding it hard to imagine buying a car before getting inside it. A few dealers offer a pre-order option, but you can always back out of the sale once you see the car.

What definitions are in universal use?

No definition is in universal use.

meant to say gender when he said sex

He meant to say exactly what he said, and it was incorrect. He was not using your definition of sex. He was using it in the same sense as “I had a sex change operation”.

Or “Now I want to change the sex on my birth certificate”. Do you also chime in to inform people it’s wrong to do that?

That just makes the therapy cost more per patient.

If a therapy costs too much, insurance will no longer pay for it.

And when insurance decides not to pay for a therapy that is only used by a handful of people, there are often only a handful of complaints.

Very few drugs are largely government funded. The government funds basic research, but it won’t fund clinical trials. Pharma companies are almost entirely responsible for clinical trials, and they are way, way more expensive than basic research.